My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-05-10_REVISION - C1981013
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981013
>
2007-05-10_REVISION - C1981013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:16:52 PM
Creation date
8/7/2009 3:54:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/10/2007
Doc Name
DRMS Brief in Support of NOV CV2007001, Civil Penalty & Proposed Decision on SI
Type & Sequence
SI1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
i <br />i <br />Based on Tatums' separate citizen complaints directed to it, OSM issued a <br />TDN to the Division concerning the Tatums' current citizen complaint. <br />(Attached as Exhibit; G). The Division thereafter issued NOV CV-2007-001, <br />thereby responding to the TDN. (Attached as Exhibit H; see also OSM's <br />response attached as! Exhibit I) <br />Basin Resources responded to Tatum's citizen complaint by stating the <br />Tatums received a judgment and have started post judgment collection <br />remedies against Basin Resources. Basin Resources stated it knows of no <br />basis in the Coal Act or regulations to call upon the Division for aid in <br />enforcement of a state court money judgment. <br />However, as stated above, Basin Resources' position is misguided. <br />Subsidence damage is a basis for a civil damage suit as well as a violation of <br />the Coal Act and regulations. §§ 34-33-121 and 135(6), C.R.S. Contrary to <br />Basin Resources' argument, the Division is not attempting to aid in the <br />enforcement of a money judgment; the Division is enforcing its own Act and <br />regulations to ensure; that Basin Resources is in regulatory compliance as a <br />permittee. <br />In addition, Basin Resources' argument in response to the current NOV that <br />it has a choice as to how to abate the NOV was specifically rejected by the <br />Court of Appeals in its published opinion. The Court of Appeals <br />specifically held that the Coal Act and associated regulations do not confer <br />onto a defendant found to have caused subsidence damage to a plaintiff the <br />power to elect which! remedy to provide. Tatum, 141 P.3d at 870-71. The <br />opinion is attached for your convenience as Exhibit J. <br />Thus, given that the settlement agreement does not preclude the current <br />NOV; that the Division is not enforcing a money judgment but is ensuring <br />that regulatory requirements are met; and that the Court of Appeals rejected <br />Basin Resources' argument that it has a choice as to how to abate the NOV, <br />the Division properly,, issued this NOV and this Board should uphold the <br />NOV. <br />C. Case law re: claim and issue preclusion <br />In anticipation of possible arguments by Basin Resources that the Division is <br />somehow precluded from issuing the NOV because of the Tatums' lawsuit <br />15
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.